Mark E. Mallett <mem(_at_)mv(_dot_)mv(_dot_)com>:
Would "ADV" matching be done before or after any charset conversion?
Can't be after -- your character set might wind up being one of the
wide-character CJK encodings, in which case you can't even write "ADV:".
Thanks for pointing out that this means some form of Keyword header
is not optional; I will add a note to the Rationale.
Also, would it be worth a sentence somewhere that says that the
existence of this I-D (or RFC) in no way endorses any particular
approach (I'm specifically thinking of the implication that suddenly
opt-out has been sanctified).
I don't think we need to go there. In fact, I'd prefer the RFC not
talk about policy at all, just specify mechanisms. Lees controversy
that way.
While I am here: is there a current practice of any sort for a
header that identifies the end-user filter program that the message
has passed through? e.g. "X-Filtered-By: spamanoid version 3.2" ?
I seem to recall seeing one once, but haven't been able to locate it.
I don't know of any standard practice. I had planned to write up such a
proposal as part of this draft, but as that is not responsive to the
CAN-SPAM request it is really a separate topic.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg